Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV01158, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01158    Hearing Date: February 13, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

DAVID HAVEN, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV01158 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSE 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

February 13, 2024 

 

I. Motion to Compel 

Defendant The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, erroneously sued as "State of California" (“CalTrans”) propounded (1) form interrogatories, set one, and (2) request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, on Plaintiff David Haven (“Plaintiff”) on August 23, 2023. Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he was attempting to reach Plaintiff and requested additional time to respond to discovery. After CalTrans granted the requested extensions and having not received any responses, CalTrans now seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions. 

In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that they have diligently sought to acquire responses, but they have lost contact with Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel.  

In reply, CalTrans avers it is entitled to receive responses, and that the breakdown of the attorney-client relationship between Plaintiff and his counsel does not justify denying the motion. 

The Court agrees with CalTrans. Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against CalTrans, and CalTrans is entitled to discovery. Plaintiff’s absence in this matter is not substantial justification to avoid his discovery obligations, nor does it demonstrate excusable neglect, mistake, or inadvertence as argued. Plaintiff’s counsel concedes that Plaintiff has failed to provide responses. 

Therefore, because the evidence shows Plaintiff was properly served with discovery and failed to respond, Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses CalTrans’ form interrogatories, set one, and RPDs, set one, without objections, within twenty (20) days. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).) 

 

II. Sanctions 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless a court makes certain findings.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)¿CalTrans requests $440 for each motion against Plaintiff and his counsel. However, given that CalTrans is clearly informed that Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to contact Plaintiff, the Court will not impose any sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel absent direct evidence that counsel in fact has the ability to contact Plaintiff.     

CalTrans is awarded one hour for each motion to compel, and one hour to appear at the hearing (awarded only once), at the requested rate of $220 per hour, for a total of $660 in attorney’s fees.  

Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff only. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions to CalTrans, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $660 within twenty (20) days. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 9th day of February 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court